世論 (Public Opinion)

      Public opinion. Is it really so important? Well, it can be, if one really want's to be. However those who need it to be important are those who might be wanting to get rid of it. The nature of this problem is starting to really get slippery, many want people to shut up and the newspaper that they wrote and listen to those words instead. It's sad that someone is doing this, trying to get rid of people's right to speak, or give an opinion. When someone wants another to keep their feelings to themselves, it makes me want to go and find them and give a good beating. Unfortunately, I'd be arrested for standing up for myself. If someone needs to change the nature of this, we need someone who is willing to write the truth about people who aren't celebrities. And writing about their lives full of lies. Our sources of public opinion obviously come from the general public, but they can come from our own selves as well. But what kind of sources? well there is protesting. But what kind of good does protesting really do? Nothing. Why? Because all the person really is doing is complaining about the situation, they really aren't doing anything. Complaining only drags out an argument for to long, if your going to protest, don't go walking around with signs saying things like, "Taxes are unfair!" or, "I need a safe place!" Things like this get word around, but just annoys the people you're protesting to. Instead people should straight up go to the person they really want to talk to. They should bring witnesses so that the other person won't give up so easily. Now, with that being said. Getting people riled up is a good thing, just don't have people protest on streets to much.

   Are there consequences with public opinion? Absolutely. Never think that your free speech is going to come without some form of a consequence, because it won't. A consequence could be that someone might call the police on you, another could be that you might have disagreement among your ranks and lose members. Even to those who trying to oppose public opinion, might have consequences in trying to disband your protest. You could return with even more numbers and ignore the police threats, or they might be successful and lose you entirely. Whatever the case, there are consequences on both sides of the coin.

   So once again. Is public opinion really important? Yes it can. As long as you don't abuse it, and as long as you believe that it really is important. Because giving a public opinion should always be important even to those who believe it should be dumped off somewhere, laid to rest. Give your opinion always, so that if someone came up to you and said to shut up, you will be able to tell them what you want to say even if they don't agree. Many people will not agree with your logic, even friends. But it is good to give advice and hear it at the same time, especially from friends. In the end, the will be there for you no matter what. After all, they'll probably be in that protest you made, alongside of you.

言論の自由(Free Speech)

              On October 16 2016. Jennifer Schuessler, a writer from the New York Times wrote about students in collages and universities who protested about free speech. She wrote about how many students, (who were under the age of 35, said by Albert Mohler) wanted to have more of a environment where they could feel safe to say things they wanted. There should be nothing wrong with free speech, but unfortunately some of the professors did not want their pupils to say things that might hurt their own feelings. These professors have somewhat of a good idea, however this would only apply to those students that who what to be rude and try and push buttons on the professors nerves. Having students who want free speech has happened before.
 
As Albert Mohler wrote, "the Baby Boomers and the political liberalism that was very much their cause during the 1960s on America's collage and universities campus, the Baby Boomers demanded free speech." He also goes on to state that this 'free speech', went on before then, even in the 1780s because of the First Amendment in the Constitution. Freedom of speech was, is, and will always be something people want. People only express their passion for free speech, when they feel threaten that it might disappear. Even the young America fought back, when it felt under attack by Britain. And they fought not just for the protection of land rights, but also freedom of speech. If you think about it just right, Americans had something to say to Britain. This is why the Declaration of Independence was sent to the English. America said want they want, and the opposing party was offended by this.


            Back to the students. They feel like they can't say things they want, now most of those students aren't the rude ones. So it is completely fine with them wanting to protest. The opposing party,(The professors) do not want the students having this privilege. History and The Constitution completely point out that there is almost no point for the professors to even fight against the students, because the students are in the right. However, those professors might had a winning chance against the students. This is because of other people who are very much the same as the those professors, same age range, same beliefs, and quite possibly the same ''rebellious" children. And those other people are... judges. Judges mostly have the same views and beliefs as those professors, but fortunately, it was the students who won their protest rights. But the question is, will there be more of these incidents? And will they be always the same result? This all falls on whether or not the older people get offended. words only offend people if those people want to take it offensive. "Bricks and Stones may break my bones, but Words cannot offend me." 



What happened to that saying in peoples everyday lives? The only reason people get offend really is because, of the truth being spat right in their own lying face. People can't and don't want to face the truth. There are many reasons, one is reputation, another could be embarrassment, and another could be exposure to having to deal with something that person tried to hide for a while. People need to hear the truth, otherwise, that person will never know how to improve. But those who don't want to hear the truth will never improve, because they are stubborn. Those older people don't want to be told what to do because they believe, because they are older, they don't need to improve. This is false! All kinds of people need to improve; even those who are close to their death bed. Everyone has a choice to give up their feelings and give in, this includes believing in Jesus Christ. So anyone has a choice to change and give up their feelings. And those who are older and already have, bless them. And those who haven't, no cursing. prey for them. That is why America was made in the first place, freedom of prayer. So if students can't have freedom of speech, Christians might loose their freedom of prayer. So... we should pray for those who believe that free speech should be taken away. Because once they give up their feelings, they will be free.
      
         The new generation needs to make sure that freedom of speech isn't taken away. Because once it is, no one can say what needs to be said. Truth is important. Therefore, the truth needs to be set free. So that no one can say, "Please stop! That hurts my feelings!" (with their whining voice.) when the truth is said right in their face. Let us, the new generation of young adults, be able to change the way of these whiny, older adults. So that we don't have a nation in chaos.           

タイタンの内戦 (The Civil War of the Titans)

During the ten months after the Constitutional Convention, an "standing miracle" occurred. The Debate in Virginia began. You had Federalists on one side, and Antifederalists on the other. The Federalists were an outgoing, energetic, and loud party. While the Antifederalists tried to make their points in a quiet manner. Antifederalists were considered "men of little faith" by a historian who thought that saying was meant for bad. The Antifederalists were "men of little faith", they had little faith, and feared for the new government that may have come. The Anti's didn't want a consolidated government, because a government such as that would be hungry for power. So the Anti's moved forward the idea of having a "we the people" kind of government, having representatives for all of the citizens of the U.S to understand what the people want.  James Madison told the Anti's that no one could exist, it would have to much authorities who would want to take over for their own selfish gain. However the Anti's retaliated with their proud words of how that these representatives would be protecting Americans from hostile takeovers from the Revolutionary War, by having these people with true republican faith. What the Federalists wanted to do was to contest a offer of coherent rebuttal that made the Constitution look like a rescue, rather then a betrayal. Later in the debate, Madison and Hamilton were presenting almost the same facts in the same way, so the teammates had to split up. But it wasn't just for the same facts, they even started arguing about some of each others beliefs. Madison was starting to somewhat agree about having a "we the people" government, While Hamilton was strongly disagreeing. Thus the splitting up.
Later in November and December of 1788, the Publius essays where written. The Essays reiterated the arguments he had made in Philadelphia. Alliances were made, but they were unstable forms of government. So they weren't going to last, but they ended up with the Federalists, so they lasted a bit longer.
In the following January of 1789, Madison's message began to change. He felt that the Anti's where on the right track, although he didn't join them. He still believed that the Anti's weren't that far off from making the right kind of government for their new country. Madison then explained the new way of his feelings to everyone, some agreed, others didn't. Therefore, he wanted to change his position in his group and step down for a little while. Later a man named Patrick Henry entered into the debate, this roused suspicion for Madison. He didn't like the way he smelled, which was like a "rat".
Madison then stepped back in to try and stop this madness. Madison unfortunately was right, Henry was throwing "thunderbolt" speeches left and right just to hide his true intentions. Henry blocked passage for several years of the bill for religious freedom, which was what started the entire pilgrim, and Revolutionary War was founded on. But the way Henry spoke to the people, made them believe in him. Madison had to persuade the people to listen to reason, thus the begin of the Clash of the Titans. Henry was animated, passionate, spoke without notes, and combined the appearance of an actor and a powerful minister in a big church. Where as Madison was calm with his words, so calm that the stenographer couldn't hear most of his words. Madison appeared in a humble manner, and used notes to appear professional. John Marshall said that "Mr. Henry without a doubt the greatest power to persuade". Whereas "Mr. Madison had the greatest power to convince. Because Henry was very loud and outgoing, that he fired a full salvo aimed to strike every single premise in the Federalist case for ratification. Then America was close to anarchy, and the Articles were about to expire? No these are just scarred citizens who feared Henry and his voice. However Henry believed that the Virginian economy was agreeing with Henry, and then minding there own business. It was sort of a "pursuit of happiness", how they would agree on the outside, but completely disagree on the inside. Arguments began about the Articles, some believed they were inaccurate. "The Confederation..." someone said, "carried us through a long and dangerous war. It rendered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation. It has secured us a territory greater then any European monarch possesses. And shall a Government this strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility for want of energy?" What this means is that this person had doubts on having Henry or some one like him, to be leading the new country. Then later, people started to understand the "We the people." Because if the debaters said "we the states." Then the new Americans wouldn't feel together as one nation. There fore they kept we the people. Later Henry objected to the claim that Virginia's deliberations were merely an irrelevant epilogue to a story with a foregone conclusion. Although most of the little nation agreed with the plan, Henry wanted to change there minds and have them see his side of his view. However if the entire nation agreed with him, then he would reject. This would probably be, because the entire nation would then surrender and give up. Henry may have been irrational, but I don't think he was that irrational. Over the next few days, Madison delivered two lengthy speeches that took the form of a point-by-point rebuttal of Henry's presentation. These two undisputed champions couldn't be in any one of the groups because of the way they thought, almost to a point where they had to be kicked out of the debate. However, there speeches were so good, that they just couldn't be taken away from the debates.
Much time later, Henry then argued about how the Constitution may have created a consolidated government that essentially annihilated state power. If he read it carefully, the Henry might have a winning chance for his side. However, Madison observed that his own fears were about to vanish. Because he then discovered that the idea might have been a unique creation. Madison said, "It is in a manner unprecedented... It stands by itself. In some respects it is a Government of a federal nature; in others it is of a consolidated nature." This 'hybrid' creature rendered Henry's flamboyant accusations irrelevant because "We the people" did not refer to "the people as composing one great body --- but the people as composing thirteen separate sovereignties." It seemed that Henry wasn't fully comprehending the significance of the entire nation. Hoverer Henry adjusted to the whole idea and eventually agreed to it, but not whole heartily. Madison concluded, "is of a complication, and this complication, I trust, will be found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well of a mere confederacy." (This was said about the proposal of the Constitution)
The genius of Madison's argument for a version of sovereignty that was at once shared and divided raised the whole pragmatic and politically painful compromises reached at the Constitutional Convention to the level of a novel political discovery: to wit, the notion that government was not about providing answers, but rather about providing framework in which the salient questions could continue to be debated.
Instead of fatal weakness, the debate survived without Bloodshed to help. Words inflicted damage, instead of bullets or swords. The Debate ended in one of the best ways possible. However in later times, minor and major civil wars would eventually break out. Even when the Debate was over, many of the men in it would fight each other just to "prove themselves"  to each other. The Debate ended in Federalist's favor, with slight alterations to adjust to the living standards for the "people." Over all, the Debate ended. Some pleased, others not. And Thus the beginning for the new country.